12 ms·

Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

1236 points by gyger 7y ago

tardo99 7y ago
Yes it's a waste. I also find it genuinely funny. Not sure why. Just tickles me.
neya 7y ago
I am an audio engineer and this is going to be a long thread. TLDR; I hate companies like Sonos. They add no value to people who know about audio. You see, everything about speakers is really simple. From the way they work to the way they're made. There's really just 4 pieces to make a speaker system. The speaker, power supply, amplifier and a pre-amplifier to modify the sound (eg. DSP, Equalizer, etc.) That's why if you search on the used market today, you'll still see equipment from companies like Aiwa/Sony from the 80s and 90s simply because these speakers can be re-used even now as you can connect anything to them before the pre-amplifier and they'll still reproduce your source (iPod/TV/Computer/whatever). I posses a 40 year old Aiwa system that still functions flawlessly today like brand new. This is also possible today because speakers themselves can last so much longer. More than 40 years as you can tell. All companies like Sonos do is add just another layer before the pre-amplifier stage - which is to make the speaker "smart". This is usually all those wifi chips and bluetooth and Google assistant and what not. This is the proprietary part of their system. Normally, you are able to throw away this proprietary part and still use the speaker system. But, in pursuit of more sales, to reduce the lifespan of a perfectly fine speaker system to simply increase revenues is the most hardcore, cruel thing one can do. Sonos' speakers are so bad that many models aren't even serviceable. Meaning, you can't open them like you could on those Aiwa's and Sony's and put them back together. Once taken apart, they're useless. They use tons of glue, proprietary shaped screws sometimes even wire the speakers in such a way that they'll damage the units if you try to take them off. They purposely do this so their speakers can't be used anymore without damaging the appearance. That's why I will any day buy a mediocre music system from Sony or LG than buy trash like Sonos. First of all, I know the quality of components they use is not that great. They use ordinary stamped steel, sometimes plastic baskets for their driver units as opposed to high quality aluminium construction. Paper diaphragms too. Their units don't even have proper crossover circuitry in some models. And besides, the drivers they use are actually based off rebranded generic Chinese, just tweaked a bit. They're very good at fooling people pretending to be an audiophile company. In reality, they're not even half as close to the stuff from the 80's and 90's. So, having ranted this, there's literally no reason to support such terrible ethics backed company simply for the sake of their profits. Fuck Sonos and get a Sony (or whatever else you like that doesn't do this). This is not just for the environment, but to set a full stop to such terrible practices. The audio land is already so full of snake oil already that the last thing we need is another snake oil sales man like Sonos.
iamaelephant 7y ago
If you buy a LAN or WAN connected speaker you're a dumb guy. No exceptions.
jimbob45 7y ago
To piggyback off this week's hate of MBAs, it seems likely some idiot MBA determined that the company was losing exorbitant amounts of money from secondhand sales of their devices such that they had to implement this ridiculous initiative.
duelingjello 7y ago
Smdh. Consumerism at it's finest wastefulness.
monocasa 7y ago
Oh man, I would absolutely take one of these off anyone's hands if they have one to hack on. Would pay for shipping.
dcow 7y ago
I wonder what’s going to happen after they get a bunch of, “my kid turned on recycle mode now I have a brick plz halp” support calls...
- jbigelow76 7y ago
  Probably the same thing that happened, and mostly in the same frequency as happened, 6 months ago. This article highlights the shittiness of Sonos's "implementation" of a recycle program, not the customer's experience or results (discounted purchases of new products) of initiating the program.
- justinclift 7y ago
  Sounds like they already have, with their response being "Nothing we can do, so sad. You'll need to buy a new set of gear".
dcow 7y ago
The dumbest thing is that if I can sell my old Sonos rather than trash them in recycle mode then I am more likely to upgrade sooner since the sale of my used hardware can also help subsidize the upgrade regardless of whether Sonos offers me credit or not. And now Sonos has an additional user of their product (which in turn markets the product and is likely to build loyalty assuming the product isn’t shit) and a new hardware sale. I am willing to bet Sonos needs both growth of their user base and needs to demonstrate that some core percentage of their customers regularly upgrade on a ~5yr purchase cycle. And it doesn’t actually cost Sonos anything (relative to the BOM for a device) to handle the compute for the extra user so it’s not like the person upgrading is making off with anything of additional value to Sonos. So take the environmental concerns out of the picture: this is just short sighted nooby business. This smells like some program cooked up by a hot shot MBA type that the executive team trusts to tweak the business because they don’t shut up about needing to focus on type of numbers investors care about. Never mind they don’t know the first thing about building a decent product. And to make it worse they’re probably actually convinced they’re helping the environment.
jakobegger 7y ago
I was going to buy a Sonos speaker, but this changed my mind. I'm not buying a device that was built to be bricked. I would have bought a Sonos instead of an Apple Homepod because I thought they were more "open". But if the manufacturer can just make my device useless, I'm not interested. Audio and Hifi gear is extremely versatile and virtually everything is compatible. High end devices easily last for decades. This feature makes it clear that Sonos has no intention of following that tradition.
- kristianc 7y ago
  > I would have bought a Sonos instead of an Apple Homepod because I thought they were more "open". But if the manufacturer can just make my device useless, I'm not interested. Nope, it’s just iOS updates that brick HomePods.
  - kirstenbirgit 7y ago
    That was a bug, not a 'feature' like Recycle Mode.
    - sm4rk0 7y ago
      Anyway, you should be aware of risk when buying a piece of hardware which depends on a service (like OTA updates or cloud connection).
    - kristianc 7y ago
      Incidentally, iOS has a remote kill switch as a feature too.
  - jakobegger 7y ago
    Yes. Just to be clear, I'm going to buy neither a Homepod nor a Sonos. I think I'm going to get dumb speakers and a Raspberry/Hifiberry. Shairplay does 90% of what I want a smart speaker to do, and I think a Raspberry is a pretty future proof device.
    - 7y ago
zhrvoj 7y ago
Ooooo what a sustainable behaviour... Next step is to schedule Recycle mode. Then we will have to hack the gadget not to do that. My friend she is using Sony android phone from 2013, she disabled google apps long ago, I did some things, and for average user like she is, it is perfect, fast and responsive, Whapp, Viber, calls, camera...spending money on travelling, not on manufacturer's jerking-gadgets. I presume Sony and other manufacturers don't like us to much. Frankly, I don't give a damn...
martin_bech 7y ago
Im just reminded that the fashion industry does somewhat the same.. they litterally set fire to unsold clothes, to protect the brand and margins.
sm4rk0 7y ago
That's why I prefer buying hardware and service (if any) unbundled.
philpem 7y ago
What an absolute and utter waste. On the other hand: I'd rather like to get hold of a bricked Sonos. I'd stick a Raspberry Pi, DAC and speaker amp inside it. Be free of the shackles of the cloud, my child!
chaboud 7y ago
This seems like it's for a trade-up/upgrade program, which would traditionally be: 1) Customer boxes up device. 2) Customer mails device to manufacturer. 3) Manufacturer hits it with a hammer, ensuring that they don't have to compete with their own used device after the customer has been given a credit for it. So, instead, we have: A) Customer starts bricking process. B) Customer recycles device locally. C) Local electronics recycler hits device with a hammer because it has self bricked, ensuring that the manufacturer doesn't have to compete with their own used device after the customer has been given a credit for it. So we've removed disposable packaging and fuel for shipping. It seems like a net win for the environment. They're going to do their trade in program. They can either do it the traditional way or do it this way, having a slightly lower adverse environmental impact. Leaving the device functional is not on the menu, and acting like it is is intentionally obtuse.
tripzilch 7y ago
I experienced a similar thing when I helped a friend install LineageOS on their bootlooped Android phone. Apparently, this process would have been 10x easier if they had switched on "OEM unlocking" in the Developer Options setting (which you can't do from the boot menu, recovery menu or via adb), which is off by default for a very stupid reason. We were successful in the end, but it was a LOT of hassle. So, when you switch on "OEM unlocking", you get a warning that it's "for protection against thieves". Like, a thief would steal your phone and it's encrypted and locked, but because "OEM unlocking" is off they can't simply wipe it and reinstall to re-sell, or something. So to them it's a brick and therefore they wouldn't have stolen your phone I guess. Except if they spend some effort they can totally cleanly reinstall the thing, it just takes more steps. Maybe I'm missing some part here about how this "OEM unlocking" option supposedly protects against theft, but for me it was a simple sum. Number of times my phone got stuck in a boot loop: 3, number of times my phone got stolen: 0. So I set that to unlocked, now I'll have an easier time if I ever mess up my phone again. The only real reason I can think of is that they WANT your phone to stay bricked/bootlooped when it's bricked, and be unable to fix and repair it. It has nothing to do with theft, it's just a way to make sure the device stays disabled when it's disabled, and to make you buy another new phone. Additionally, I got nothing but happy comments about LineageOS from my friend. You can really tell in the feel of the entire system the difference between what it means to be a user (normal software) or to be the product (like in Android or any of the Google/Facebook/Apple systems). Just by what options you're given and the fact that applications actually behave at your service instead of nagging you while you're trying to accomplish a task. I'm not really happy about how Android 9 is running on my moto-g6, so I think I'm gonna make that switch soon as well. You don't even need to root the phone to do this, but it's a choice (I think I'm going to root it though).
- jdnenej 7y ago
  I got hit by this same issue. We had a few spare phones at work in a draw and I wanted to give them to friends in need of a phone. Had permission from the company but no one knew who owned them or what the password was. I did the manual factory reset from the recovery but was hit by this "security" feature. I eventually managed to track down the original owner and had them unlock the devices. If I hadn't, these phones would be ewaste. What bothers me is the solution is simple, when a manual factory reset is done, have the phone ping google and start a 1 week countdown. Google can then email the original owner and ask if they have had their phone stolen. If they reply yes then the phone is locked. If they reply no or have no response then the phone unlocks.
topmonk 7y ago
As a programmer, if someone asked me to do this, I would walk out.
ivanhoe 7y ago
I'm very much DIY guy and hate it when companies block users from doing whatever they want with their equipment, but this is a special case. User gets the discount from Sonos for recycling the old equipment, and thus user doesn't own it anymore. It belongs to Sonos now as they bought it back, and of course they don't want it resold half-price by 3rd party, it's a competition to their new products. To me it seems perfectly legit, as long as you get a discount for that. And the equipment can still be recycled and resold for parts, they don't block that.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  It makes sense for Sonos. It’s also environmentally terrible.
kyberias 7y ago
Sonos speaker owner here. Has there been any efforts in reverse engineering how the devices work and having an open source firmware?
HocusLocus 7y ago
Gone Missing: mindless rage, scandal, foreboding, nausea and disgust at what the future may bring if a trend is not stopped in its tracks. Emerging, Rising: apologist arguments that equate compromise and degeneration of tools made out of a sense of personal cleverness, finding that one-use case where the trend might 'save the planet' or at least present it as such, winning the debate among like minds.
- HocusLocus 7y ago
  It's getting to where if I fail to get downvoted here, I wonder if I've stated my point clearly.
fjni 7y ago
There was never any appeal to me in a speaker which is so tightly coupled with software. I don’t see those still working in 10+ years. Whereas there’s plenty of old hifi setups still being used. The fact that the software has an intentional bricking mechanism in it just makes this more apparent.
Jemm 7y ago
Best reason not to buy a Sonos product.
- mycall 7y ago
  Or mod it
layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
>From what our eBay guy can tell, the bricking isn't even in hardware; you can't recover it if you're good with JTAG, because it's blacklisted as "recycled" on their servers. Yet another reason to never own anything "smart". I wonder how difficult would it be to strip out the Sonos smart crap from these speakers and connect a Raspberry W to the preamp?
vkaku 7y ago
I'll be happy to flash a build of Snapcast on my Sonos speakers and do away with their software for good.
greyhair 7y ago
I wish they would sell them at a reduced price just as powered speakers, to people that would just like to use them as powered speakers. No support provided, just a website where you could click and order. There are a number of people that would be more than happy and able to repurpose an old Sonus speaker that no longer operated as a Sonus speaker.
iforgotpassword 7y ago
Ok, this seems really disgusting. The post was lacking some context at first but from how I understand this, you can render your sonos device unusable voluntarily and in turn get a new sonos device for a little cheaper. This happens by marking the serial number of your device on the sonos servers as "recycled" making reactivation impossible. And they're somehow marketing this "feature" as environmentally friendly because it somehow in some twisted sense means you recycle your old device for a new one. I'm speechless.
- vuln 7y ago
  Truly disgusting.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  Seems ripe for a hacking attempt. Being able to kill hardware with software always seems dangerous.
  - katmannthree 7y ago
    According to the twitter thread their ``recycle mode'' works by blacklisting the device's serial number in the mfg's database to prevent it from working, so depending on what you want to do with them they might be perfectly functional.
    - bathtub365 7y ago
      I’d guess it also deactivates the speaker and you need to add it to a Sonos account to activate it and add it to a group. This would prevent that.
    - IanCal 7y ago
      That sounds like Sonos can easily reactivate them, right? That's not a bricking, is it?
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
maweki 7y ago
Why is that not incredibly illegal?
- egdod 7y ago
  Why would it be illegal? And what’s the difference between illegal and incredibly illegal anyway?
  - maweki 7y ago
    There's "illegal but we'll do it anyway since any penalty is less than what we made because of it" and there's "it's illegal so let's not do it as it puts our CEO in jail". I thought this was obvious.
    - bathtub365 7y ago
      What would be illegal about it? Plenty of devices have hardware usage tied to software activation so there’s years of precedent of this being acceptable.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        That should be illegal.
        bathtub365 7y ago
        I don’t really want to go back to a world where the expensive phone I carry has a high value on the black market because it can easily be reactivated by anyone, because that makes carrying it a liability. The flipside is obviously that I put a lot of trust in the company that owns the activation service, but I’ve accepted the tradeoff.
    - egdod 7y ago
      You think that deactivating devices with customer consent is something that should land the CEO in prison.
gok 7y ago
> Someone recycled five of these Sonos Play:5 speakers. They're worth $250 each, used, and these are in good condition. They could easily be reused. Then the owner should have sold (given?) them as-is, rather than trying to double dip by telling Sonos they were going to recycle them for parts (for which they pay you $120) then not doing so.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  > recycle them for parts "Recycling" does not inherently imply "for parts".
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Screwing over companies that screw over the environment is morally sound.
  - gok 7y ago
    How is it screwing over Sonos? The credit can only be spent on new Sonos equipment. Or are you talking about the OP's company, who is cashing on people's desire to recycle?
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      "double dip"; your words, not mine.
- bathtub365 7y ago
  The owner did try to recycle them for parts, by giving them to the recycling centre.
  - gok 7y ago
    I now see what's going on...the OP claims to be running an e-recycling center but actually takes "donations" and sells them for a profit instead.
    - 7y ago
wiggles_md 7y ago
IIRC Logitech used to do this with warranty replacements on Harmony remotes—don’t know if they still do. It made purchasing one used risky.
- rednerrus 7y ago
  It makes purchasing one new risky.
- drewg123 7y ago
  They did this, but the blacklist only prevents the remote from getting updates from the cloud.. it does not brick the device, and it can continue to use its current config. Or at least that's how it used to be. I have a harmony that I bought in 2009-ish, and the provided "batteries included" exploded in the first few days of ownership and made a huge mess. I wrote them a complaint, and they sent me a new remote. When I activated the new one, the old one stopped taking updates. Amusingly, there is an open source tool that can pull a config from one harmony and flash it to another. The replacement was actually slightly inferior (mushy keys), and so I'd program the replacement, back up the config, and restore it to the original.
baybal2 7y ago
Well, this is where the industry is going. The latest buzzword we hear in the industry is called "product as a service" — you buy a product, but still don't own it. You have to keep paying them for using your own property or else they remotely brick the device. First gen Ipods were a prime example, but now everybody seem to want to do the same. We recently had a prospective client who had an idea of very cheap internet connected Ipod clone, who of course had a "genius business model" of jacking the price n-fold after sale under a threat of remote bricking. I'm very glad we refused.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  > The latest buzzword we hear in the industry is called "product as a service" — you buy a product, but still don't own it. That's so 2019 :-P Today it's "consumer as a product" -- you buy a product, they own YOU.
- majani 7y ago
  This is where the investor backed audio companies are going. There will always be independent companies that don't have huge financial pressures that will be willing to sell complete devices at a one time fee
- Angostura 7y ago
  > First gen Ipods were a prime example Eh what?
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Maybe how they used FireWire when it was on its way out?
  - baybal2 7y ago
    On early Ipods music was effectively "glued" to the individual player with a primitive DRM/scambling system. So, you were dead in the water without Itunes that kept the fairplay key for that particular player
    - 7y ago
noodlesUK 7y ago
What’s intensely frustrating about this is that audio equipment is one of the few areas where old high end kit is still absolutely fantastic for current users. I have an NAD 3020 from the 1980s which works perfectly with the same pair of speakers that it was bought with. I can’t say the same about other tech, but audio just doesn’t age at the same speed.
- hakfoo 7y ago
  I think one of the interesting aspects is that performance plateaued in a lot of ways. If you look at the S/N and distortion specs on a new affordably priced receiver, they won't be meaningfully better than a mid-range unit from the late 70s/early 80s. All the new HDMI and 20.7 Dolby Surround does nothing for two-channel MP3s or CDs. Because the performance is equal, it's allowed build quality to shine. 15kg of heatsinks, capacitors the size of Coke cans, and big old TO-3 transistors are probably going to outlast propriatery digital doodads and amp-on-a-module designs built to minimize costs. I'm more of a JVC fanboy myself, but I've been working on a Kenwood KR-6200 recently. 45 years old and one dead bulb. Unacceptable!
  - brigade 7y ago
    Ehh, S/N has improved so much since the 80's that the noise floor of today's low-end receivers are significantly better than basically all high-end equipment from back then, especially if you include the DAC.
- askvictor 7y ago
  I'm kind of glad I went with Squeezebox (formerly slim devices) 10 or so years ago. The entire server and client system is OSS, written in Perl on Linux (OK, that bit's annoying now, but was nice when I still used perl). The audio hardware is (still) great, and the software is hackable and I can SSH in to my speaker and change things if I need/want to. Most annoying thing is the constant cat-and-mouse game with hacked-on suppport for streaming services.
- globular-toast 7y ago
  Indeed, and it won't lose any value as you use it either. In fact, a lot of vintage equipment only gains value. My speakers are older than me by more than a decade (1972) and cost me £10 plus about £15 to repair the foams that perished a few years ago.
BorisTheBrave 7y ago
So, Sonos optionally lets you brick your own device, as part of their Trade Up program that gives a discount on your next device. It's named Recycle mode as, presumably, all the bricked devices are good for is recycling. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping users from selling their speakers on - they just forgo the Trade Up discount. The poster's point that this cuts down on re-use of perfectly good products is true, but it doesn't seem that much different to other trade in programs, e.g. Apple's. The difference seems to be that Sonos leave the burden of actually recycling the product (or not) to the user, while Apple does it for you.
- MrStonedOne 7y ago
  The key piece you're missing is that there is no trade up part. You get the discount for putting it in recycle mode, but you do not send it to them. They basically give you discount to brick your old device as a way to kill off the secondary market.
- rkochman 7y ago
  I assume Apple and other companies sell the used products to liquidators who refurbish and resell them. Is that not true?
  - Skunkleton 7y ago
    it is worth noting that there is enough profit in a new iPhone to eat the discount they are giving you, even if your old phone ends up in a crusher.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    > I assume Apple and other companies sell the used products to liquidators who refurbish and resell them. Is that not true? For high brand value goods, generally no. Goods are crushed to become unserviceable. It's important to do that to maintain brand image, otherwise floods of not-very-old iPhones end up on ebay for $10, and the image of an iPhone as something that lasts and has resale value is shattered. High end clothing manufacturers will even destroy brand new, never worn clothes to maintain brand image, because they don't want them sitting in the bargain bin looking 'cheap'. It isn't as bad for the environment as it sounds - the vast majority of the costs in a $1000 iPhone are engineering, IP, licensing, manufacturing, capital and marketing costs. The actual metal and plastic is worth hardly anything, so destroying it isn't a big loss. Even the manufacturing cost is near zero because after launch day of a specific model, the marginal cost to produce one more phone is pretty much zero because production lines are rarely still at capacity.
baybal2 7y ago
Apple pays Chinese "recyclers" for not to refurbishing their I-stuff, and sending it to a crusher. That's not a big secret in the industry. A lot of luxury goods brands destroy their unsold merchandise, and some even go Apple style after their second hand market too.
- mkolodny 7y ago
  Source?
  - baybal2 7y ago
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-ip... I myself worked in refurbishment in the very beginning of my career. Even back in 2012 they were already quite militant with the refurbishing industry. They blackmailed Alibaba into removing refurbished Apple goods from their store under a threat of pulling their goods from Tmall, and suing them in the US. Iphone 4 started manufacturing using a non-sticky optical bonding gel for the glass, but later they switched to a hard epoxy out of a sudden in the middle of manufacturing run. People noted that this was a very expensive solvent resistant epoxy that was very hard. They intentionally made it impossible to unbond the display without ruining it.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  "A lot of luxury goods brands destroy their unsold merchandise" This also happens since probably forever with fruit and vegetables if they're unsold or in overproduction. The reason is to keep prices fixed by artificially reducing the offer.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    And if one's looking for the reason why so many people complain about the market economy, that's one reason. This is all economically sound, but beyond that, utterly fucked up.
  - userbinator 7y ago
starsinspace 7y ago
So Sonos devices need "activation" via some server on the internet? Why? If I just want to stream audio within my own home, why is internet even necessary? And what happens when Sonos goes out of business and the servers are shut down? I just don't understand why people keep buying such things...
- benologist 7y ago
  Sonos don't need to go out of business to shut down the servers.
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  Because it is super convenient to set up, works well, and it is non obvious how it is harmful.
- jjtheblunt 7y ago
  When expensive devices have to "phone home" to first be enabled, that kills the aftermarket for stolen expensive devices?
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    I feel bad about it but I rather wish it worked this way for expensive power tools. I don't want permanent drm for tools I just want a one time lock that is forever disabled upon purchase. Perhaps electronically while being purchased.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      I can't imagine any of the contractors I've hired successfully navigating the setup for DRM-enabled power tools, let alone the inevitable hiccups when working in unnetworked areas etc. I'm not talking about Harbor Freight scumbags like myself. I'm talking about the valuable trend followers who have a new cordless from Dewalt or Ryobi or Milwaukee every six months and buy more expensive items regularly as well. Those guys cannot handle DRM shenanigans, and will forever despise with a burning passion any firm that inflicts such upon them.
noonespecial 7y ago
Sounds like an opportunity to score some decent physical hardware for a song. It could become a brand new hacker brand. "Noson". Fix the device via jag to talk to an open source server like an own cloud plugin.
reeddavid 7y ago
What a total waste. Apparel companies are starting to participate in the secondary market for their used gear, why can't Sonos do something similar? Examples: - Patagonia Worn Wear (https://wornwear.patagonia.com https://wornwear.patagonia.com) - REI Used Gear (https://www.rei.com/used/shop/gear https://www.rei.com/used/shop/gear) - Arc'teryx Rock Solid (https://rocksolid.arcteryx.com https://rocksolid.arcteryx.com) As it stands, Sonos is effectively buying their old speakers and then throwing them away. Could they not recoup their costs and avoid e-waste by simply selling the used Sonos devices into a market that can't afford the brand new ones? I thought this is how most phone trade-in programs worked, which seems like a mature process now.
- LatteLazy 7y ago
  Patagonia are famously environmental and not really run on a capitalist basis...
  - kbos87 7y ago
    I believe that Patagonia cares about the environment and wishes there was more they could do, but I think they are absolutely driven by the forces of capitalism, whether they like it or not, and it’s visible in their current practices. They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. Yes they sprinkle in campaigns and messaging to not buy new unless you really need it and they facilitate recycling/reuse of their past products, but capitalism still forces them to seek growth, relevance, and sales to survive, which they do. Not faulting them for it, just wishing it wasn’t that way.
    - fuzzfactor 7y ago
      >They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. These are all things a regular entrepreneur would do whether they were capitalist or not. Or any of _other peoples' money_ was involved. Even when the only environment to operate in is recognized as overwhelmingly capitalist, a non-capitalist entrepreneur can still have some unfair advantages. When you're selling all you can make for a profit long enough, you're supposed to be doing well depending only on business structure after that. Yes, you might have a disadvantage being surely influenced by the forces of capitalism, but it can often be done. Also without growth as an articulated goal, the pressure of exponential demands can be appropriately moderated and more sustainable growth with better returns can still result compared to alternative leadership approaches which focus on growth most aggressively but still end up wishing they could do as well. >If you want to understand the entrepreneur, study the juvenile delinquent. The delinquent is saying with his actions, _This sucks. I'm going to do my own thing._ __Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia
jessriedel 7y ago
If the devices become useless, how is this any different from Sonos just offering customers "trade-in" value for their old devices (like for used cars) and then throwing them out? Just that the device doesn't get physically mailed to Sonos? Like if you think it's just spiritually bad to throw working things out, fine. But how is Sonos doing wrong by the customer?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Presumably that customer lives on the same planet as everybody else does and we all share the same environment. Sending good gear to the landfill is disgusting and damaging on many levels.
- iforgotpassword 7y ago
  Yes, as a marketing person you could probably argue that the environmentally positive effect is that you don't have to mail the device in, and I'm not claiming other vendors aren't trying to prevent people from reselling used products, but this specific instance just seems so overly ironic because it makes the result of such offers so crystal clear: "get a discount by making sure nobody could possibly get any use out of your old device even if it's still working fine" Plus I don't think other vendors are trying to sell such discount programs as some form of recycling.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- atomicthumbs 7y ago
  Used cars don't get thrown out when they're traded in. And it's not "spiritually bad," it's actively destructive to the environment. Manufacturing things requires a great deal of energy.
  - userbinator 7y ago
    Well, there was this, fortunately short-lived... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
alkonaut 7y ago
I wish someone would start making little add-on boards you could put into your Sonos products to bypass the onboard hardware and use your own. Just re-use the amp, speakers. I built my own spotify receiver using an rpi with a hifiberry add on which worked perfectly. If someone built even simpler custom made Sonos play:5 boards I’d be less reluctant to buy more of them as I fear they may be expensive bricks if Sonos fails.
jacquesm 7y ago
Sonos had a fair shot at having me as a customer. I was ready to put down money on an installation for a house and then I found out it needed 'activation over the internet'. That being the sign of a company to avoid I walked out again, to the consternation of the sales person who had (his words, not mine): "Never had a customer decide against Sonos because of that". Looks like I made the right call.
- foogazi 7y ago
  What setup did you end up with? >"Never had a customer decide against Sonos because of that" as long as customers don’t care neither will Sonos
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Homebrew.
- savrajsingh 7y ago
  The sad thing is, as hacker news readers, we're a tiny minority of people that even know about or care about these issues. The masses (and that salesperson) are completely oblivious to, maybe 99% of content on HN. :)
allthecybers 7y ago
This is shocking. Why do I need to have a recycle mode on a speaker? Oh because it’s a WiFi connected, smart speaker that collects and stores data on me. We recently read about Apple devices being bricked in the recycling process because of Find My, but that makes sense, because it’s a personal computer or phone where I intentionally store personal data. And I’d much rather err on the side of that data not getting out. But seriously Sonos, this is dumb. To intentionally brick devices that could be perfectly functional for someone else is honestly bad for the planet and business. Glad I’ve never bought a Sonos and now I never will.
- rurban 7y ago
  You forgot that Sonos is mostly a CIA spying device, so it needs to be destroyed remotely if the operation is in danger to be detected.
cissou 7y ago
Am I misunderstanding something? Once in recycle mode you're supposed to send them back so that Sonos can actually recycle (or even reuse, nothing stops them from refurbishing) the old device. Recycle mode seems to simply be a convenience so that people can get the 30% rebate immediately once they've shown they're serious about sending back the device. What sucks is that you have to trade up to recycle, if they offered some buy back program it'd be near perfect, right?
- ipsum2 7y ago
  The point of the tweetstorm is that Reuse > Recycling, and by rendering them functionally useless is a waste of resources.
- gok 7y ago
  OP is essentially returning an empty bottle for the deposit and then complaining they can't also refill and sell the same bottle themselves.
- JonathonW 7y ago
  Sonos doesn't take back the used devices: they expect users to give them to a local electronics recycler for recycling, where they essentially have to be scrapped, because devices in "recycle mode" are blacklisted in Sonos's servers and can't be resold (even if they're in perfect working order).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- aurbano 7y ago
  Except Sonos doesn't actually want the old device back, they say that you should take it to a recycling center so they can take it apart or whatever they do with them [1] [1] https://twitter.com/secresDoge/status/1210684264880189441 https://twitter.com/secresDoge/status/1210684264880189441
  - duskwuff 7y ago
tasty_freeze 7y ago
About 8(?) years ago my wife tasked me to get a whole-house audio system that was simple to use. After reading a lot, sonos was the clear choice, though pricey. We started with two play:3's, then added a play:5 and two more play:3's. And things were good. But for the past year the system has been a mess. Music stutters, some units can't be found, some units fail to upgrade through multiple retries/reboots. I've wasted so many hours relocating them and connecting the misbehaving units to an ethernet cable trying to get them to update. Eventually things get working again after hours of blind tinkering, but then a month or two later it happens again. My wife looks to me as the tech guy to solve it, but it is far more opaque to debug then when PCs misbehave. Yes, I know about the secret diag menus and login, but they don't really help me. The point is: my wife resents that the system doesn't work, and I resent that I've wasted so much time and my wife thinks I'm shirking because every time it comes up I groan and put off the pain of getting it working again. I won't brick these -- I'll find some use case where they do work, but I'll get some other system to make my wife happy, even if it means spending another $1200+.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Honestly, it sounds like you have some kind of local 2.4 GHz interference problem. Try unplugging unnecessary wireless devices or moving them well out of range while troubleshooting, don't run microwave ovens until you've ruled them out, and keep your phones and other gadgets well away from the affected hardware. See if you can make friends with someone who owns a spectrum analyzer.
  - tasty_freeze 7y ago
    Before when I said I had spent hours trying to debug this, I did exactly that. Turned off every single wifi device in the house, turning off every printer, phone, and the ring doorbell. I tried bringing up one sonos device at a time to figure to figure out if one of them was causing problems. Also, I used wifiman on my android phone to sniff out other networks. Finally, I am lucky enough to live on 3.5 acres so there aren't any nearby wifi access points. Anyway, another comment has pointed me to the apparent solution: the sonos bridge device apparently is not essential -- just connecting one of the speakers via a wired connection makes it the bridge for the sonos network.
userbinator 7y ago
If there's a demand, someone industrious will likely figure out a hack --- I hope. Server-side blacklisting (unlike whitelisting) doesn't stop someone from simply changing whatever unique ID they have to a different one. I can even see repair shops doing this service for those who accidentally bricked their devices. This reminds me of a related situation I've seen with electric toothbrushes --- they have instructions on how to remove the battery "for recycling", which is deliberately designed to make the unit self-destruct in the process (by e.g. making the plastic thin and fragile, and the wires brittle and easily broken), but others have figured out how to use those same instructions to open it up and replace the cells at a fraction of the cost of a new unit. The fact that nothing needs to be broken to replace them, and that it could be trivially designed to make that job much easier, clearly demonstrates planned obolescence.
- overgard 7y ago
  > Server-side blacklisting (unlike whitelisting) doesn't stop someone from simply changing whatever unique ID they have to a different one. Dunno, if the ID works like an activation key it might not recognize ids that don’t pass some sort of cryptographic signature check. Then you would need the private key to generate new valid ids.
  - aryamaan 7y ago
    How about copying them from valid machines then? May be they generate new tokens for every request and one set of the key is in hardware itself protected. Such a waste of tech and resources to not let use the very things which they purchased.
    - overgard 7y ago
      I agree it's a terrible waste, my suspicion is just that if they want to keep unauthorized devices off their network, it wouldn't be hard to implement.
- gdxhyrd 7y ago
  Which brands?
sitkack 7y ago
Dear lazy web, is there something like the sonos that is open source that makes the same synchronized sound field (I dont own a sonos, I assume that is what they do)? I believe I could hack something up using an ESP32, a microphone and/or a GNSS receiver, but does this already exist?
- SanchoPanda 7y ago
  Logitech media server. Run LMS on one pi or a docker container, and then onother pi zeros run Squeezelite. The entirety of the installation on the receiving devices is ` sudo apt install squeezelite`. It has been game changing for me.
floatingatoll 7y ago
Is this a violation of US resale rights?
- gruez 7y ago
  Why would it be? It was done in exchange for a 30% discount. Scummy or not, it has clear elements of a contract.
echelon 7y ago
This could go very bad for Sonos. Imagine a virus that looks for Sonos devices on a network and bricks them all via "recycle mode"! The API probably isn't even locked down. I think it's unauthenticated SOAP/UPnP. An even dumber attack: guests with your wifi credentials can download the Sonos app and break your gear. It's entirely unauthenticated.
- rmtech 7y ago
  > Imagine a virus that looks for Sonos devices on a network and bricks them all via "recycle mode"! This would be an incredible public service. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to do it so I won't.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    I mean it really wouldn't, because the virus would be dooming the devices to go into "recycle or trash" option, instead of the "reuse" option. And otherwise it would just piss off Sonos owners?
    - ThiefMaster- 7y ago
      If it's purely server-side it would force them to un-recycle everything, which would be a good thing.
- ThiefMaster- 7y ago
  You probably don't need a virus or anything running in the end user's network. If your Sonos can access the API to mark a device as recycled, so can you. So if you can predict serial numbers or just bruteforce them (depending on how complex they are) you might be able to brick every single Sonos out there... I highly doubt they assign unique keypairs etc. to every single device...
- throwaway100773 7y ago
  Im in the market for sound equipment. I just crossed these guys off my list.
kevmo 7y ago
This is a common tactic in America's industrial products.
- antoinevg 7y ago
  Oh believe you me, after decades of this kind of crap us non-Americans have become quite cautious about buying American products!
- duelingjello 7y ago
  IKR. I have a nice Anker waterproof rechargeable speaker w/ subwoofer that doubles as a battery bank that was $75. It seems darn durable and works for me. Screw Sonos.
tempsy 7y ago
If there’s one company I’d bet on being acquired next year it’s probably Sonos. Even with a 30-50% premium it’s a small buy for any of the big cos who want to increase market share in home device market.
mrinfinite 7y ago
sonos is the worst. They sell speakers without an audio input (last time i checked)... and can only be controlled/used by sonos software... homey dont play that. but i am disillusioned with itunes as well... wah
bborud 7y ago
I have a sonos speaker at my cabin and while the audio isn’t bad the spotty wifi coverage and the choppy audio that keeps dropping out when I listen to Audible at 1.25 to 1.5 speed is annoying. It just isn’t a very good product in my eyes. I have cheap Bluetooth speakers that work much better. So I would be interested in “upcycling” the Sonos with new innards. Time to watch some teardown videos to see what can be done.
S_A_P 7y ago
Hey everyone. I get that Sonos does have some value add here allowing mesh networking and encrypted audio. Buuuuuuuuuut, there are tons of alternative options. I like building speakers and I have built my sound bar using components from parts express and some reclaimed hard woods. Parts express has tons of Bluetooth options and the quality is mostly pretty good. I am using morel and peerless drivers and the 2x50 watt Bluetooth amp. The sound is as good or better than any sound bar I’ve heard and I don’t have to update software or deal with obnoxious TOS agreements. My tv connects to it without issues and while it’s not as elegant as the Sonos experience but I will take that over planned obsolescence.
lvturner 7y ago
Not super familiar with Sonos, but why do they 'need' to connect to a server in order to work at all? Do they bundle in some kind of subscription streaming service or something? I always thought they were just wireless speakers that I used locally on my own network...
crazygringo 7y ago
It seems like a lot of commenters here (as well as the tweets) are totally missing the purpose of the recycle mode. If you want to sell, give away, or otherwise let someone else reuse your Sonos, then DON'T PUT IT IN RECYCLE MODE. Easy peasy. Recycle mode exists for when you intentionally want to get a Sonos trade-in credit for recycling your speakers for materials. But because you don't send the speakers directly to Sonos (instead to a local recycler), they have to trust you're actually recycling it instead of keeping it or selling it. So the recycle lock is a clever mechanism to ensure that. Otherwise you could "cheat" by getting the credit AND still using/selling your speakers. So if you want your speakers to be reused... don't take the credit!! Donate or sell them instead! It's your choice. It seems to me like overall it's a good set of incentives. The credit helps encourage people to recycle them at all instead of just throwing them in the trash, right? But doesn't prevent people from otherwise selling or donating them. Since it gives the consumer all the choice, this seems like a win for all sides, no?
- duxup 7y ago
  Disabling perfectly functional equipment for some business reason still seems to contradict the concept of sustainably.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  > they have to trust you're actually recycling it instead of keeping it or selling it Why?
- kstenerud 7y ago
  How can it be that this is the top voted comment, with such a glaring logic flaw? There is literally no way for them to verify that you didn't just throw your device in the landfill after enabling recycling mode and pocketing the cash. So this "functionality" does no good at all, other than to recruit the customer into their planned obsolescence program while praising the company for their "green" policy. And it worked like a charm. Just look at how many people upvoted this comment, signifying their praise of the company for this terrible program!
  - 7y ago
mavhc 7y ago
Step 1: convince your customers to brick their own devices. Step 2: buy back now worthless, and thus cheap, devices. Step 3: unbrick, resell, profit
- rabbidruster 7y ago
  If they did step two it wouldn't be nearly as bad.
  - mavhc 7y ago
    Well, you'd have to do it secretly, buy them back from the recyclers
Trias11 7y ago
Light bulb manufacturers goes to great extents to artifically shorten lifestyle of bulbs. I adjusted to that by keeping bulb receipts. Then buying new ones to replace failing ones. Then coming 3 weeks later to get refund or credit for failed ones. Putting pressure on retailers to stop carrying crappy products. I know it's not exactly audio stuff but manufacturers engaging in misleading to the point of fraudulent practices need to be dealt with.
sizzle 7y ago
Is there no way to fake the Sonos server and reauthenticate the bricked device offline or tear it down and bypass any logic chips and get at the speaker hardware directly, create an analog 3.5mm jack input and play music from it manually? Would love to see the folks at hackaday or somewhere else exploit the recycle mode hardware.
throwaway887665 7y ago
I found out about the perils of depending on specific apps, cloud or something like that when gave a toy to girlfriend and now we can't play anymore because the app wasn't updated to the latest Android. Literally we would tell the manufacturer to introduce it in specific places to tell us if it is usefull without remote control

1236 points by gyger 7y ago

Yes it's a waste. I also find it genuinely funny. Not sure why. Just tickles me.

neya 7y ago

I am an audio engineer and this is going to be a long thread. TLDR; I hate companies like Sonos. They add no value to people who know about audio. You see, everything about speakers is really simple. From the way they work to the way they're made. There's really just 4 pieces to make a speaker system. The speaker, power supply, amplifier and a pre-amplifier to modify the sound (eg. DSP, Equalizer, etc.) That's why if you search on the used market today, you'll still see equipment from companies like Aiwa/Sony from the 80s and 90s simply because these speakers can be re-used even now as you can connect anything to them before the pre-amplifier and they'll still reproduce your source (iPod/TV/Computer/whatever). I posses a 40 year old Aiwa system that still functions flawlessly today like brand new. This is also possible today because speakers themselves can last so much longer. More than 40 years as you can tell. All companies like Sonos do is add just another layer before the pre-amplifier stage - which is to make the speaker "smart". This is usually all those wifi chips and bluetooth and Google assistant and what not. This is the proprietary part of their system. Normally, you are able to throw away this proprietary part and still use the speaker system. But, in pursuit of more sales, to reduce the lifespan of a perfectly fine speaker system to simply increase revenues is the most hardcore, cruel thing one can do. Sonos' speakers are so bad that many models aren't even serviceable. Meaning, you can't open them like you could on those Aiwa's and Sony's and put them back together. Once taken apart, they're useless. They use tons of glue, proprietary shaped screws sometimes even wire the speakers in such a way that they'll damage the units if you try to take them off. They purposely do this so their speakers can't be used anymore without damaging the appearance. That's why I will any day buy a mediocre music system from Sony or LG than buy trash like Sonos. First of all, I know the quality of components they use is not that great. They use ordinary stamped steel, sometimes plastic baskets for their driver units as opposed to high quality aluminium construction. Paper diaphragms too. Their units don't even have proper crossover circuitry in some models. And besides, the drivers they use are actually based off rebranded generic Chinese, just tweaked a bit. They're very good at fooling people pretending to be an audiophile company. In reality, they're not even half as close to the stuff from the 80's and 90's. So, having ranted this, there's literally no reason to support such terrible ethics backed company simply for the sake of their profits. Fuck Sonos and get a Sony (or whatever else you like that doesn't do this). This is not just for the environment, but to set a full stop to such terrible practices. The audio land is already so full of snake oil already that the last thing we need is another snake oil sales man like Sonos.

iamaelephant 7y ago

If you buy a LAN or WAN connected speaker you're a dumb guy. No exceptions.

jimbob45 7y ago

To piggyback off this week's hate of MBAs, it seems likely some idiot MBA determined that the company was losing exorbitant amounts of money from secondhand sales of their devices such that they had to implement this ridiculous initiative.

duelingjello 7y ago

Smdh. Consumerism at it's finest wastefulness.

monocasa 7y ago

Oh man, I would absolutely take one of these off anyone's hands if they have one to hack on. Would pay for shipping.

dcow 7y ago

I wonder what’s going to happen after they get a bunch of, “my kid turned on recycle mode now I have a brick plz halp” support calls...

jbigelow76 7y ago
Probably the same thing that happened, and mostly in the same frequency as happened, 6 months ago. This article highlights the shittiness of Sonos's "implementation" of a recycle program, not the customer's experience or results (discounted purchases of new products) of initiating the program.
justinclift 7y ago
Sounds like they already have, with their response being "Nothing we can do, so sad. You'll need to buy a new set of gear".

dcow 7y ago

The dumbest thing is that if I can sell my old Sonos rather than trash them in recycle mode then I am more likely to upgrade sooner since the sale of my used hardware can also help subsidize the upgrade regardless of whether Sonos offers me credit or not. And now Sonos has an additional user of their product (which in turn markets the product and is likely to build loyalty assuming the product isn’t shit) and a new hardware sale. I am willing to bet Sonos needs both growth of their user base and needs to demonstrate that some core percentage of their customers regularly upgrade on a ~5yr purchase cycle. And it doesn’t actually cost Sonos anything (relative to the BOM for a device) to handle the compute for the extra user so it’s not like the person upgrading is making off with anything of additional value to Sonos. So take the environmental concerns out of the picture: this is just short sighted nooby business. This smells like some program cooked up by a hot shot MBA type that the executive team trusts to tweak the business because they don’t shut up about needing to focus on type of numbers investors care about. Never mind they don’t know the first thing about building a decent product. And to make it worse they’re probably actually convinced they’re helping the environment.

jakobegger 7y ago

I was going to buy a Sonos speaker, but this changed my mind. I'm not buying a device that was built to be bricked. I would have bought a Sonos instead of an Apple Homepod because I thought they were more "open". But if the manufacturer can just make my device useless, I'm not interested. Audio and Hifi gear is extremely versatile and virtually everything is compatible. High end devices easily last for decades. This feature makes it clear that Sonos has no intention of following that tradition.

kristianc 7y ago
> I would have bought a Sonos instead of an Apple Homepod because I thought they were more "open". But if the manufacturer can just make my device useless, I'm not interested. Nope, it’s just iOS updates that brick HomePods.
- kirstenbirgit 7y ago
  That was a bug, not a 'feature' like Recycle Mode.
  - sm4rk0 7y ago
    Anyway, you should be aware of risk when buying a piece of hardware which depends on a service (like OTA updates or cloud connection).
  - kristianc 7y ago
    Incidentally, iOS has a remote kill switch as a feature too.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  Yes. Just to be clear, I'm going to buy neither a Homepod nor a Sonos. I think I'm going to get dumb speakers and a Raspberry/Hifiberry. Shairplay does 90% of what I want a smart speaker to do, and I think a Raspberry is a pretty future proof device.
  - 7y ago

zhrvoj 7y ago

Ooooo what a sustainable behaviour... Next step is to schedule Recycle mode. Then we will have to hack the gadget not to do that. My friend she is using Sony android phone from 2013, she disabled google apps long ago, I did some things, and for average user like she is, it is perfect, fast and responsive, Whapp, Viber, calls, camera...spending money on travelling, not on manufacturer's jerking-gadgets. I presume Sony and other manufacturers don't like us to much. Frankly, I don't give a damn...

martin_bech 7y ago

Im just reminded that the fashion industry does somewhat the same.. they litterally set fire to unsold clothes, to protect the brand and margins.

sm4rk0 7y ago

That's why I prefer buying hardware and service (if any) unbundled.

philpem 7y ago

What an absolute and utter waste. On the other hand: I'd rather like to get hold of a bricked Sonos. I'd stick a Raspberry Pi, DAC and speaker amp inside it. Be free of the shackles of the cloud, my child!

chaboud 7y ago

This seems like it's for a trade-up/upgrade program, which would traditionally be: 1) Customer boxes up device. 2) Customer mails device to manufacturer. 3) Manufacturer hits it with a hammer, ensuring that they don't have to compete with their own used device after the customer has been given a credit for it. So, instead, we have: A) Customer starts bricking process. B) Customer recycles device locally. C) Local electronics recycler hits device with a hammer because it has self bricked, ensuring that the manufacturer doesn't have to compete with their own used device after the customer has been given a credit for it. So we've removed disposable packaging and fuel for shipping. It seems like a net win for the environment. They're going to do their trade in program. They can either do it the traditional way or do it this way, having a slightly lower adverse environmental impact. Leaving the device functional is not on the menu, and acting like it is is intentionally obtuse.

tripzilch 7y ago

I experienced a similar thing when I helped a friend install LineageOS on their bootlooped Android phone. Apparently, this process would have been 10x easier if they had switched on "OEM unlocking" in the Developer Options setting (which you can't do from the boot menu, recovery menu or via adb), which is off by default for a very stupid reason. We were successful in the end, but it was a LOT of hassle. So, when you switch on "OEM unlocking", you get a warning that it's "for protection against thieves". Like, a thief would steal your phone and it's encrypted and locked, but because "OEM unlocking" is off they can't simply wipe it and reinstall to re-sell, or something. So to them it's a brick and therefore they wouldn't have stolen your phone I guess. Except if they spend some effort they can totally cleanly reinstall the thing, it just takes more steps. Maybe I'm missing some part here about how this "OEM unlocking" option supposedly protects against theft, but for me it was a simple sum. Number of times my phone got stuck in a boot loop: 3, number of times my phone got stolen: 0. So I set that to unlocked, now I'll have an easier time if I ever mess up my phone again. The only real reason I can think of is that they WANT your phone to stay bricked/bootlooped when it's bricked, and be unable to fix and repair it. It has nothing to do with theft, it's just a way to make sure the device stays disabled when it's disabled, and to make you buy another new phone. Additionally, I got nothing but happy comments about LineageOS from my friend. You can really tell in the feel of the entire system the difference between what it means to be a user (normal software) or to be the product (like in Android or any of the Google/Facebook/Apple systems). Just by what options you're given and the fact that applications actually behave at your service instead of nagging you while you're trying to accomplish a task. I'm not really happy about how Android 9 is running on my moto-g6, so I think I'm gonna make that switch soon as well. You don't even need to root the phone to do this, but it's a choice (I think I'm going to root it though).

jdnenej 7y ago
I got hit by this same issue. We had a few spare phones at work in a draw and I wanted to give them to friends in need of a phone. Had permission from the company but no one knew who owned them or what the password was. I did the manual factory reset from the recovery but was hit by this "security" feature. I eventually managed to track down the original owner and had them unlock the devices. If I hadn't, these phones would be ewaste. What bothers me is the solution is simple, when a manual factory reset is done, have the phone ping google and start a 1 week countdown. Google can then email the original owner and ask if they have had their phone stolen. If they reply yes then the phone is locked. If they reply no or have no response then the phone unlocks.

topmonk 7y ago

As a programmer, if someone asked me to do this, I would walk out.

ivanhoe 7y ago

I'm very much DIY guy and hate it when companies block users from doing whatever they want with their equipment, but this is a special case. User gets the discount from Sonos for recycling the old equipment, and thus user doesn't own it anymore. It belongs to Sonos now as they bought it back, and of course they don't want it resold half-price by 3rd party, it's a competition to their new products. To me it seems perfectly legit, as long as you get a discount for that. And the equipment can still be recycled and resold for parts, they don't block that.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
It makes sense for Sonos. It’s also environmentally terrible.

kyberias 7y ago

Sonos speaker owner here. Has there been any efforts in reverse engineering how the devices work and having an open source firmware?

HocusLocus 7y ago

Gone Missing: mindless rage, scandal, foreboding, nausea and disgust at what the future may bring if a trend is not stopped in its tracks. Emerging, Rising: apologist arguments that equate compromise and degeneration of tools made out of a sense of personal cleverness, finding that one-use case where the trend might 'save the planet' or at least present it as such, winning the debate among like minds.

HocusLocus 7y ago
It's getting to where if I fail to get downvoted here, I wonder if I've stated my point clearly.

fjni 7y ago

There was never any appeal to me in a speaker which is so tightly coupled with software. I don’t see those still working in 10+ years. Whereas there’s plenty of old hifi setups still being used. The fact that the software has an intentional bricking mechanism in it just makes this more apparent.

Jemm 7y ago

Best reason not to buy a Sonos product.

mycall 7y ago
Or mod it

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago

>From what our eBay guy can tell, the bricking isn't even in hardware; you can't recover it if you're good with JTAG, because it's blacklisted as "recycled" on their servers. Yet another reason to never own anything "smart". I wonder how difficult would it be to strip out the Sonos smart crap from these speakers and connect a Raspberry W to the preamp?

vkaku 7y ago

I'll be happy to flash a build of Snapcast on my Sonos speakers and do away with their software for good.

greyhair 7y ago

I wish they would sell them at a reduced price just as powered speakers, to people that would just like to use them as powered speakers. No support provided, just a website where you could click and order. There are a number of people that would be more than happy and able to repurpose an old Sonus speaker that no longer operated as a Sonus speaker.

iforgotpassword 7y ago

Ok, this seems really disgusting. The post was lacking some context at first but from how I understand this, you can render your sonos device unusable voluntarily and in turn get a new sonos device for a little cheaper. This happens by marking the serial number of your device on the sonos servers as "recycled" making reactivation impossible. And they're somehow marketing this "feature" as environmentally friendly because it somehow in some twisted sense means you recycle your old device for a new one. I'm speechless.

vuln 7y ago
Truly disgusting.
alasdair_ 7y ago
Seems ripe for a hacking attempt. Being able to kill hardware with software always seems dangerous.
- katmannthree 7y ago
  According to the twitter thread their ``recycle mode'' works by blacklisting the device's serial number in the mfg's database to prevent it from working, so depending on what you want to do with them they might be perfectly functional.
  - bathtub365 7y ago
    I’d guess it also deactivates the speaker and you need to add it to a Sonos account to activate it and add it to a group. This would prevent that.
  - IanCal 7y ago
    That sounds like Sonos can easily reactivate them, right? That's not a bricking, is it?
    - oh_sigh 7y ago

maweki 7y ago

Why is that not incredibly illegal?

egdod 7y ago
Why would it be illegal? And what’s the difference between illegal and incredibly illegal anyway?
- maweki 7y ago
  There's "illegal but we'll do it anyway since any penalty is less than what we made because of it" and there's "it's illegal so let's not do it as it puts our CEO in jail". I thought this was obvious.
  - bathtub365 7y ago
    What would be illegal about it? Plenty of devices have hardware usage tied to software activation so there’s years of precedent of this being acceptable.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      That should be illegal.
      - bathtub365 7y ago
        I don’t really want to go back to a world where the expensive phone I carry has a high value on the black market because it can easily be reactivated by anyone, because that makes carrying it a liability. The flipside is obviously that I put a lot of trust in the company that owns the activation service, but I’ve accepted the tradeoff.
  - egdod 7y ago
    You think that deactivating devices with customer consent is something that should land the CEO in prison.

gok 7y ago

> Someone recycled five of these Sonos Play:5 speakers. They're worth $250 each, used, and these are in good condition. They could easily be reused. Then the owner should have sold (given?) them as-is, rather than trying to double dip by telling Sonos they were going to recycle them for parts (for which they pay you $120) then not doing so.

crooked-v 7y ago
> recycle them for parts "Recycling" does not inherently imply "for parts".
jacquesm 7y ago
Screwing over companies that screw over the environment is morally sound.
- gok 7y ago
  How is it screwing over Sonos? The credit can only be spent on new Sonos equipment. Or are you talking about the OP's company, who is cashing on people's desire to recycle?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    "double dip"; your words, not mine.
bathtub365 7y ago
The owner did try to recycle them for parts, by giving them to the recycling centre.
- gok 7y ago
  I now see what's going on...the OP claims to be running an e-recycling center but actually takes "donations" and sells them for a profit instead.
  - 7y ago

wiggles_md 7y ago

IIRC Logitech used to do this with warranty replacements on Harmony remotes—don’t know if they still do. It made purchasing one used risky.

rednerrus 7y ago
It makes purchasing one new risky.
drewg123 7y ago
They did this, but the blacklist only prevents the remote from getting updates from the cloud.. it does not brick the device, and it can continue to use its current config. Or at least that's how it used to be. I have a harmony that I bought in 2009-ish, and the provided "batteries included" exploded in the first few days of ownership and made a huge mess. I wrote them a complaint, and they sent me a new remote. When I activated the new one, the old one stopped taking updates. Amusingly, there is an open source tool that can pull a config from one harmony and flash it to another. The replacement was actually slightly inferior (mushy keys), and so I'd program the replacement, back up the config, and restore it to the original.

baybal2 7y ago

Well, this is where the industry is going. The latest buzzword we hear in the industry is called "product as a service" — you buy a product, but still don't own it. You have to keep paying them for using your own property or else they remotely brick the device. First gen Ipods were a prime example, but now everybody seem to want to do the same. We recently had a prospective client who had an idea of very cheap internet connected Ipod clone, who of course had a "genius business model" of jacking the price n-fold after sale under a threat of remote bricking. I'm very glad we refused.

tripzilch 7y ago
> The latest buzzword we hear in the industry is called "product as a service" — you buy a product, but still don't own it. That's so 2019 :-P Today it's "consumer as a product" -- you buy a product, they own YOU.
majani 7y ago
This is where the investor backed audio companies are going. There will always be independent companies that don't have huge financial pressures that will be willing to sell complete devices at a one time fee
Angostura 7y ago
> First gen Ipods were a prime example Eh what?
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  Maybe how they used FireWire when it was on its way out?
- baybal2 7y ago
  On early Ipods music was effectively "glued" to the individual player with a primitive DRM/scambling system. So, you were dead in the water without Itunes that kept the fairplay key for that particular player
  - 7y ago

noodlesUK 7y ago

What’s intensely frustrating about this is that audio equipment is one of the few areas where old high end kit is still absolutely fantastic for current users. I have an NAD 3020 from the 1980s which works perfectly with the same pair of speakers that it was bought with. I can’t say the same about other tech, but audio just doesn’t age at the same speed.

hakfoo 7y ago
I think one of the interesting aspects is that performance plateaued in a lot of ways. If you look at the S/N and distortion specs on a new affordably priced receiver, they won't be meaningfully better than a mid-range unit from the late 70s/early 80s. All the new HDMI and 20.7 Dolby Surround does nothing for two-channel MP3s or CDs. Because the performance is equal, it's allowed build quality to shine. 15kg of heatsinks, capacitors the size of Coke cans, and big old TO-3 transistors are probably going to outlast propriatery digital doodads and amp-on-a-module designs built to minimize costs. I'm more of a JVC fanboy myself, but I've been working on a Kenwood KR-6200 recently. 45 years old and one dead bulb. Unacceptable!
- brigade 7y ago
  Ehh, S/N has improved so much since the 80's that the noise floor of today's low-end receivers are significantly better than basically all high-end equipment from back then, especially if you include the DAC.
askvictor 7y ago
I'm kind of glad I went with Squeezebox (formerly slim devices) 10 or so years ago. The entire server and client system is OSS, written in Perl on Linux (OK, that bit's annoying now, but was nice when I still used perl). The audio hardware is (still) great, and the software is hackable and I can SSH in to my speaker and change things if I need/want to. Most annoying thing is the constant cat-and-mouse game with hacked-on suppport for streaming services.
globular-toast 7y ago
Indeed, and it won't lose any value as you use it either. In fact, a lot of vintage equipment only gains value. My speakers are older than me by more than a decade (1972) and cost me £10 plus about £15 to repair the foams that perished a few years ago.

BorisTheBrave 7y ago

So, Sonos optionally lets you brick your own device, as part of their Trade Up program that gives a discount on your next device. It's named Recycle mode as, presumably, all the bricked devices are good for is recycling. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping users from selling their speakers on - they just forgo the Trade Up discount. The poster's point that this cuts down on re-use of perfectly good products is true, but it doesn't seem that much different to other trade in programs, e.g. Apple's. The difference seems to be that Sonos leave the burden of actually recycling the product (or not) to the user, while Apple does it for you.

MrStonedOne 7y ago
The key piece you're missing is that there is no trade up part. You get the discount for putting it in recycle mode, but you do not send it to them. They basically give you discount to brick your old device as a way to kill off the secondary market.
rkochman 7y ago
I assume Apple and other companies sell the used products to liquidators who refurbish and resell them. Is that not true?
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  it is worth noting that there is enough profit in a new iPhone to eat the discount they are giving you, even if your old phone ends up in a crusher.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  > I assume Apple and other companies sell the used products to liquidators who refurbish and resell them. Is that not true? For high brand value goods, generally no. Goods are crushed to become unserviceable. It's important to do that to maintain brand image, otherwise floods of not-very-old iPhones end up on ebay for $10, and the image of an iPhone as something that lasts and has resale value is shattered. High end clothing manufacturers will even destroy brand new, never worn clothes to maintain brand image, because they don't want them sitting in the bargain bin looking 'cheap'. It isn't as bad for the environment as it sounds - the vast majority of the costs in a $1000 iPhone are engineering, IP, licensing, manufacturing, capital and marketing costs. The actual metal and plastic is worth hardly anything, so destroying it isn't a big loss. Even the manufacturing cost is near zero because after launch day of a specific model, the marginal cost to produce one more phone is pretty much zero because production lines are rarely still at capacity.

baybal2 7y ago

Apple pays Chinese "recyclers" for not to refurbishing their I-stuff, and sending it to a crusher. That's not a big secret in the industry. A lot of luxury goods brands destroy their unsold merchandise, and some even go Apple style after their second hand market too.

mkolodny 7y ago
Source?
- baybal2 7y ago
  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-ip... I myself worked in refurbishment in the very beginning of my career. Even back in 2012 they were already quite militant with the refurbishing industry. They blackmailed Alibaba into removing refurbished Apple goods from their store under a threat of pulling their goods from Tmall, and suing them in the US. Iphone 4 started manufacturing using a non-sticky optical bonding gel for the glass, but later they switched to a hard epoxy out of a sudden in the middle of manufacturing run. People noted that this was a very expensive solvent resistant epoxy that was very hard. They intentionally made it impossible to unbond the display without ruining it.
squarefoot 7y ago
"A lot of luxury goods brands destroy their unsold merchandise" This also happens since probably forever with fruit and vegetables if they're unsold or in overproduction. The reason is to keep prices fixed by artificially reducing the offer.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  And if one's looking for the reason why so many people complain about the market economy, that's one reason. This is all economically sound, but beyond that, utterly fucked up.
- userbinator 7y ago

starsinspace 7y ago

So Sonos devices need "activation" via some server on the internet? Why? If I just want to stream audio within my own home, why is internet even necessary? And what happens when Sonos goes out of business and the servers are shut down? I just don't understand why people keep buying such things...

benologist 7y ago
Sonos don't need to go out of business to shut down the servers.
Skunkleton 7y ago
Because it is super convenient to set up, works well, and it is non obvious how it is harmful.
jjtheblunt 7y ago
When expensive devices have to "phone home" to first be enabled, that kills the aftermarket for stolen expensive devices?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  I feel bad about it but I rather wish it worked this way for expensive power tools. I don't want permanent drm for tools I just want a one time lock that is forever disabled upon purchase. Perhaps electronically while being purchased.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    I can't imagine any of the contractors I've hired successfully navigating the setup for DRM-enabled power tools, let alone the inevitable hiccups when working in unnetworked areas etc. I'm not talking about Harbor Freight scumbags like myself. I'm talking about the valuable trend followers who have a new cordless from Dewalt or Ryobi or Milwaukee every six months and buy more expensive items regularly as well. Those guys cannot handle DRM shenanigans, and will forever despise with a burning passion any firm that inflicts such upon them.

noonespecial 7y ago

Sounds like an opportunity to score some decent physical hardware for a song. It could become a brand new hacker brand. "Noson". Fix the device via jag to talk to an open source server like an own cloud plugin.

reeddavid 7y ago

What a total waste. Apparel companies are starting to participate in the secondary market for their used gear, why can't Sonos do something similar? Examples: - Patagonia Worn Wear (https://wornwear.patagonia.com https://wornwear.patagonia.com) - REI Used Gear (https://www.rei.com/used/shop/gear https://www.rei.com/used/shop/gear) - Arc'teryx Rock Solid (https://rocksolid.arcteryx.com https://rocksolid.arcteryx.com) As it stands, Sonos is effectively buying their old speakers and then throwing them away. Could they not recoup their costs and avoid e-waste by simply selling the used Sonos devices into a market that can't afford the brand new ones? I thought this is how most phone trade-in programs worked, which seems like a mature process now.

LatteLazy 7y ago
Patagonia are famously environmental and not really run on a capitalist basis...
- kbos87 7y ago
  I believe that Patagonia cares about the environment and wishes there was more they could do, but I think they are absolutely driven by the forces of capitalism, whether they like it or not, and it’s visible in their current practices. They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. Yes they sprinkle in campaigns and messaging to not buy new unless you really need it and they facilitate recycling/reuse of their past products, but capitalism still forces them to seek growth, relevance, and sales to survive, which they do. Not faulting them for it, just wishing it wasn’t that way.
  - fuzzfactor 7y ago
    >They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. These are all things a regular entrepreneur would do whether they were capitalist or not. Or any of _other peoples' money_ was involved. Even when the only environment to operate in is recognized as overwhelmingly capitalist, a non-capitalist entrepreneur can still have some unfair advantages. When you're selling all you can make for a profit long enough, you're supposed to be doing well depending only on business structure after that. Yes, you might have a disadvantage being surely influenced by the forces of capitalism, but it can often be done. Also without growth as an articulated goal, the pressure of exponential demands can be appropriately moderated and more sustainable growth with better returns can still result compared to alternative leadership approaches which focus on growth most aggressively but still end up wishing they could do as well. >If you want to understand the entrepreneur, study the juvenile delinquent. The delinquent is saying with his actions, _This sucks. I'm going to do my own thing._ __Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia

jessriedel 7y ago

If the devices become useless, how is this any different from Sonos just offering customers "trade-in" value for their old devices (like for used cars) and then throwing them out? Just that the device doesn't get physically mailed to Sonos? Like if you think it's just spiritually bad to throw working things out, fine. But how is Sonos doing wrong by the customer?

jacquesm 7y ago
Presumably that customer lives on the same planet as everybody else does and we all share the same environment. Sending good gear to the landfill is disgusting and damaging on many levels.
iforgotpassword 7y ago
Yes, as a marketing person you could probably argue that the environmentally positive effect is that you don't have to mail the device in, and I'm not claiming other vendors aren't trying to prevent people from reselling used products, but this specific instance just seems so overly ironic because it makes the result of such offers so crystal clear: "get a discount by making sure nobody could possibly get any use out of your old device even if it's still working fine" Plus I don't think other vendors are trying to sell such discount programs as some form of recycling.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
atomicthumbs 7y ago
Used cars don't get thrown out when they're traded in. And it's not "spiritually bad," it's actively destructive to the environment. Manufacturing things requires a great deal of energy.
- userbinator 7y ago
  Well, there was this, fortunately short-lived... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

alkonaut 7y ago

I wish someone would start making little add-on boards you could put into your Sonos products to bypass the onboard hardware and use your own. Just re-use the amp, speakers. I built my own spotify receiver using an rpi with a hifiberry add on which worked perfectly. If someone built even simpler custom made Sonos play:5 boards I’d be less reluctant to buy more of them as I fear they may be expensive bricks if Sonos fails.

jacquesm 7y ago

Sonos had a fair shot at having me as a customer. I was ready to put down money on an installation for a house and then I found out it needed 'activation over the internet'. That being the sign of a company to avoid I walked out again, to the consternation of the sales person who had (his words, not mine): "Never had a customer decide against Sonos because of that". Looks like I made the right call.

foogazi 7y ago
What setup did you end up with? >"Never had a customer decide against Sonos because of that" as long as customers don’t care neither will Sonos
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Homebrew.
savrajsingh 7y ago
The sad thing is, as hacker news readers, we're a tiny minority of people that even know about or care about these issues. The masses (and that salesperson) are completely oblivious to, maybe 99% of content on HN. :)

allthecybers 7y ago

This is shocking. Why do I need to have a recycle mode on a speaker? Oh because it’s a WiFi connected, smart speaker that collects and stores data on me. We recently read about Apple devices being bricked in the recycling process because of Find My, but that makes sense, because it’s a personal computer or phone where I intentionally store personal data. And I’d much rather err on the side of that data not getting out. But seriously Sonos, this is dumb. To intentionally brick devices that could be perfectly functional for someone else is honestly bad for the planet and business. Glad I’ve never bought a Sonos and now I never will.

rurban 7y ago
You forgot that Sonos is mostly a CIA spying device, so it needs to be destroyed remotely if the operation is in danger to be detected.

cissou 7y ago

Am I misunderstanding something? Once in recycle mode you're supposed to send them back so that Sonos can actually recycle (or even reuse, nothing stops them from refurbishing) the old device. Recycle mode seems to simply be a convenience so that people can get the 30% rebate immediately once they've shown they're serious about sending back the device. What sucks is that you have to trade up to recycle, if they offered some buy back program it'd be near perfect, right?

ipsum2 7y ago
The point of the tweetstorm is that Reuse > Recycling, and by rendering them functionally useless is a waste of resources.
gok 7y ago
OP is essentially returning an empty bottle for the deposit and then complaining they can't also refill and sell the same bottle themselves.
JonathonW 7y ago
Sonos doesn't take back the used devices: they expect users to give them to a local electronics recycler for recycling, where they essentially have to be scrapped, because devices in "recycle mode" are blacklisted in Sonos's servers and can't be resold (even if they're in perfect working order).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
aurbano 7y ago
Except Sonos doesn't actually want the old device back, they say that you should take it to a recycling center so they can take it apart or whatever they do with them [1] [1] https://twitter.com/secresDoge/status/1210684264880189441 https://twitter.com/secresDoge/status/1210684264880189441
- duskwuff 7y ago

tasty_freeze 7y ago

About 8(?) years ago my wife tasked me to get a whole-house audio system that was simple to use. After reading a lot, sonos was the clear choice, though pricey. We started with two play:3's, then added a play:5 and two more play:3's. And things were good. But for the past year the system has been a mess. Music stutters, some units can't be found, some units fail to upgrade through multiple retries/reboots. I've wasted so many hours relocating them and connecting the misbehaving units to an ethernet cable trying to get them to update. Eventually things get working again after hours of blind tinkering, but then a month or two later it happens again. My wife looks to me as the tech guy to solve it, but it is far more opaque to debug then when PCs misbehave. Yes, I know about the secret diag menus and login, but they don't really help me. The point is: my wife resents that the system doesn't work, and I resent that I've wasted so much time and my wife thinks I'm shirking because every time it comes up I groan and put off the pain of getting it working again. I won't brick these -- I'll find some use case where they do work, but I'll get some other system to make my wife happy, even if it means spending another $1200+.

CamperBob2 7y ago
Honestly, it sounds like you have some kind of local 2.4 GHz interference problem. Try unplugging unnecessary wireless devices or moving them well out of range while troubleshooting, don't run microwave ovens until you've ruled them out, and keep your phones and other gadgets well away from the affected hardware. See if you can make friends with someone who owns a spectrum analyzer.
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Before when I said I had spent hours trying to debug this, I did exactly that. Turned off every single wifi device in the house, turning off every printer, phone, and the ring doorbell. I tried bringing up one sonos device at a time to figure to figure out if one of them was causing problems. Also, I used wifiman on my android phone to sniff out other networks. Finally, I am lucky enough to live on 3.5 acres so there aren't any nearby wifi access points. Anyway, another comment has pointed me to the apparent solution: the sonos bridge device apparently is not essential -- just connecting one of the speakers via a wired connection makes it the bridge for the sonos network.

userbinator 7y ago

If there's a demand, someone industrious will likely figure out a hack --- I hope. Server-side blacklisting (unlike whitelisting) doesn't stop someone from simply changing whatever unique ID they have to a different one. I can even see repair shops doing this service for those who accidentally bricked their devices. This reminds me of a related situation I've seen with electric toothbrushes --- they have instructions on how to remove the battery "for recycling", which is deliberately designed to make the unit self-destruct in the process (by e.g. making the plastic thin and fragile, and the wires brittle and easily broken), but others have figured out how to use those same instructions to open it up and replace the cells at a fraction of the cost of a new unit. The fact that nothing needs to be broken to replace them, and that it could be trivially designed to make that job much easier, clearly demonstrates planned obolescence.

overgard 7y ago
> Server-side blacklisting (unlike whitelisting) doesn't stop someone from simply changing whatever unique ID they have to a different one. Dunno, if the ID works like an activation key it might not recognize ids that don’t pass some sort of cryptographic signature check. Then you would need the private key to generate new valid ids.
- aryamaan 7y ago
  How about copying them from valid machines then? May be they generate new tokens for every request and one set of the key is in hardware itself protected. Such a waste of tech and resources to not let use the very things which they purchased.
  - overgard 7y ago
    I agree it's a terrible waste, my suspicion is just that if they want to keep unauthorized devices off their network, it wouldn't be hard to implement.
gdxhyrd 7y ago
Which brands?

sitkack 7y ago

Dear lazy web, is there something like the sonos that is open source that makes the same synchronized sound field (I dont own a sonos, I assume that is what they do)? I believe I could hack something up using an ESP32, a microphone and/or a GNSS receiver, but does this already exist?

SanchoPanda 7y ago
Logitech media server. Run LMS on one pi or a docker container, and then onother pi zeros run Squeezelite. The entirety of the installation on the receiving devices is ` sudo apt install squeezelite`. It has been game changing for me.

floatingatoll 7y ago

Is this a violation of US resale rights?

gruez 7y ago
Why would it be? It was done in exchange for a 30% discount. Scummy or not, it has clear elements of a contract.

echelon 7y ago

This could go very bad for Sonos. Imagine a virus that looks for Sonos devices on a network and bricks them all via "recycle mode"! The API probably isn't even locked down. I think it's unauthenticated SOAP/UPnP. An even dumber attack: guests with your wifi credentials can download the Sonos app and break your gear. It's entirely unauthenticated.

rmtech 7y ago
> Imagine a virus that looks for Sonos devices on a network and bricks them all via "recycle mode"! This would be an incredible public service. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to do it so I won't.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  I mean it really wouldn't, because the virus would be dooming the devices to go into "recycle or trash" option, instead of the "reuse" option. And otherwise it would just piss off Sonos owners?
  - ThiefMaster- 7y ago
    If it's purely server-side it would force them to un-recycle everything, which would be a good thing.
ThiefMaster- 7y ago
You probably don't need a virus or anything running in the end user's network. If your Sonos can access the API to mark a device as recycled, so can you. So if you can predict serial numbers or just bruteforce them (depending on how complex they are) you might be able to brick every single Sonos out there... I highly doubt they assign unique keypairs etc. to every single device...
throwaway100773 7y ago
Im in the market for sound equipment. I just crossed these guys off my list.

kevmo 7y ago

This is a common tactic in America's industrial products.

antoinevg 7y ago
Oh believe you me, after decades of this kind of crap us non-Americans have become quite cautious about buying American products!
duelingjello 7y ago
IKR. I have a nice Anker waterproof rechargeable speaker w/ subwoofer that doubles as a battery bank that was $75. It seems darn durable and works for me. Screw Sonos.

tempsy 7y ago

If there’s one company I’d bet on being acquired next year it’s probably Sonos. Even with a 30-50% premium it’s a small buy for any of the big cos who want to increase market share in home device market.

mrinfinite 7y ago

sonos is the worst. They sell speakers without an audio input (last time i checked)... and can only be controlled/used by sonos software... homey dont play that. but i am disillusioned with itunes as well... wah

bborud 7y ago

I have a sonos speaker at my cabin and while the audio isn’t bad the spotty wifi coverage and the choppy audio that keeps dropping out when I listen to Audible at 1.25 to 1.5 speed is annoying. It just isn’t a very good product in my eyes. I have cheap Bluetooth speakers that work much better. So I would be interested in “upcycling” the Sonos with new innards. Time to watch some teardown videos to see what can be done.

S_A_P 7y ago

Hey everyone. I get that Sonos does have some value add here allowing mesh networking and encrypted audio. Buuuuuuuuuut, there are tons of alternative options. I like building speakers and I have built my sound bar using components from parts express and some reclaimed hard woods. Parts express has tons of Bluetooth options and the quality is mostly pretty good. I am using morel and peerless drivers and the 2x50 watt Bluetooth amp. The sound is as good or better than any sound bar I’ve heard and I don’t have to update software or deal with obnoxious TOS agreements. My tv connects to it without issues and while it’s not as elegant as the Sonos experience but I will take that over planned obsolescence.

lvturner 7y ago

Not super familiar with Sonos, but why do they 'need' to connect to a server in order to work at all? Do they bundle in some kind of subscription streaming service or something? I always thought they were just wireless speakers that I used locally on my own network...

crazygringo 7y ago

It seems like a lot of commenters here (as well as the tweets) are totally missing the purpose of the recycle mode. If you want to sell, give away, or otherwise let someone else reuse your Sonos, then DON'T PUT IT IN RECYCLE MODE. Easy peasy. Recycle mode exists for when you intentionally want to get a Sonos trade-in credit for recycling your speakers for materials. But because you don't send the speakers directly to Sonos (instead to a local recycler), they have to trust you're actually recycling it instead of keeping it or selling it. So the recycle lock is a clever mechanism to ensure that. Otherwise you could "cheat" by getting the credit AND still using/selling your speakers. So if you want your speakers to be reused... don't take the credit!! Donate or sell them instead! It's your choice. It seems to me like overall it's a good set of incentives. The credit helps encourage people to recycle them at all instead of just throwing them in the trash, right? But doesn't prevent people from otherwise selling or donating them. Since it gives the consumer all the choice, this seems like a win for all sides, no?

duxup 7y ago
Disabling perfectly functional equipment for some business reason still seems to contradict the concept of sustainably.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
> they have to trust you're actually recycling it instead of keeping it or selling it Why?
kstenerud 7y ago
How can it be that this is the top voted comment, with such a glaring logic flaw? There is literally no way for them to verify that you didn't just throw your device in the landfill after enabling recycling mode and pocketing the cash. So this "functionality" does no good at all, other than to recruit the customer into their planned obsolescence program while praising the company for their "green" policy. And it worked like a charm. Just look at how many people upvoted this comment, signifying their praise of the company for this terrible program!
- 7y ago

mavhc 7y ago

Step 1: convince your customers to brick their own devices. Step 2: buy back now worthless, and thus cheap, devices. Step 3: unbrick, resell, profit

rabbidruster 7y ago
If they did step two it wouldn't be nearly as bad.
- mavhc 7y ago
  Well, you'd have to do it secretly, buy them back from the recyclers

Trias11 7y ago

Light bulb manufacturers goes to great extents to artifically shorten lifestyle of bulbs. I adjusted to that by keeping bulb receipts. Then buying new ones to replace failing ones. Then coming 3 weeks later to get refund or credit for failed ones. Putting pressure on retailers to stop carrying crappy products. I know it's not exactly audio stuff but manufacturers engaging in misleading to the point of fraudulent practices need to be dealt with.

sizzle 7y ago

Is there no way to fake the Sonos server and reauthenticate the bricked device offline or tear it down and bypass any logic chips and get at the speaker hardware directly, create an analog 3.5mm jack input and play music from it manually? Would love to see the folks at hackaday or somewhere else exploit the recycle mode hardware.

throwaway887665 7y ago

I found out about the perils of depending on specific apps, cloud or something like that when gave a toy to girlfriend and now we can't play anymore because the app wasn't updated to the latest Android. Literally we would tell the manufacturer to introduce it in specific places to tell us if it is usefull without remote control